/tg/ - Traditional Games

For roleplaying games, board games and card games

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Name
Options
Subject
Message

Max message length: 0/12000

files

Max file size: 32.00 MB

Total max file size: 50.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more

E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and posts)

Misc

Remember to follow the Rules

The backup domains are located at 8chan.se and 8chan.cc. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 3.0.

.se Will Return Shortly
Keep Redchannit and Tor Bookmarked as Fallback


8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

You enter a strange web board filled with terrible off topic posts, roll courage to avoid fleeing. Aligned Boards Random|Hisrol|AV|literature|Animu|retro vidya|Japan

>>45498 >How would you fix the falling damage rules? What's wrong with them?
>>1421 a high level or even mid level barbarian can survive a fall from near-earth orbit and then stand up and kill 20 or 30 orcs without issue
>>1437 So? A colossal dragon jumping on a character to crush him only deals 4d8+STR, yet hitting the ground at terminal velocity deals 20d6. Both these things are enough to instantly merc a mid level wizard, let alone the average commoner. However, wizard's gimmick is spells. A barbarian's is the d12 hd and con bonus from rage. What you're saying isn't a matter of low damage from falling, it's that Barbarians have huge amounts of survivability (by design).
>>1421 It's not calibrated well for different creature sizes other than medium. Here's my adjustment: >Size Fine (less than 3") Fortitude vs DC 5 +1*each 10ft (cap at 200ft) or dmg 1d6-1 (min no damage); >Size Fine (3" or more) Falling damage *1/10 >Size Diminutive Falling damage *1/5 >Size Tiny Falling damage *1/2 >Size Small/Medium Falling damage *1 >Size Large Falling damage *1.5 >Size Huge Falling Damage *2 Ignore the first 10ft >Size Gargantuan Falling damage *3 Ignore the first 20ft >Size Colossal Falling damage *4 Ignore the first 30ft
>>1437 In my experience 3.5e in general breaks down after 12th level...at least on my table, but I get it >>1451 Imma write this down, thank you!
>>1451 I understand the height threshold due to tallness and how smaller creatures would take less due to better wind resistance, but why the much higher multiplier for bigger things? Are you trying to invoke square cube law? At a certain size and density, a much larger creature is going to do a lot more to the surface of the earth than it will to them.
>>1455 >why the much higher multiplier for bigger things? Are you trying to invoke square cube law? That's the general idea but i'm trying to prioritize gameability, if you want to go more towards the simulationist route use the size carry capacity multipliers to the falling damage result. >At a certain size and density, a much larger creature is going to do a lot more to the surface of the earth than it will to them. Yes i use the creature size + its (relative to it's size on a grid) reach to infer the area affected and apply the standard rule for calculating the falling object damage, which already takes into consideration mass.
>>1457 You misunderstand. For the same principle the lower weight and smaller size of a fine creature can be slowed more by the density and relatively larger 'granularity' of air, a larger and heavier creature will be slowed less by that of dirt it lands in. As it falls faster because wind resistance affects it less, the ground would impact it less for the same reason. TL;DR: A big and heavy enough creature would land in earth like we would water.
>>1486 Fair, so would be better to keep the adjustment only for smaller sizes?
What are the best prestige classes for fighters? Like if I am fighter level 5, what prestige classes are actually worth building toward? No caster options.
>>1537 Depends. Let's start. What weapon do you plan to use?
>>1537 that depends what you want to do, really,
>>1556 >>1570 Honestly anything that is a good strategy. But I'd say anything that helps a "meta" fighter build, or just gives you innately strong options that will make you better off than if you just kept taking fighter levels. Like disciple of dispater seems to be pretty OP if it was allowed and you were willing to use a falchion.
>>1575 Blessed of Gruumsh (with a dip in exotic weapon master for the flurry) should be great, bonus points if you can pounce, one way or another for another style, ashworm dragoons are rad as fuck
>>1486 >>1492 nah, a larger creature has a mass in proportion to the cube of its size, and an impact surface in proportion to the square napkin calculation, based on a spherical giant, if he weights 4 ton and smashes on a 15' square, he takes more damage than a spherical ogre weighting 1 ton and smashing on a 10' square, because of the higher ratio of mass to surface on impact, at the same speed if falling from the same height it's physically logical that a larger creature takes more HP damage than a smaller creature, this even happens irl when small children have a chance to survive falls that would kill an adult >>1486 >TL;DR: A big and heavy enough creature would land in earth like we would water. if it's hard and dense enough to plunge through its an impact crater, maybe, but that means this beast is high enough level and has enough HPs to shrug falling from orbit, that's not the general case of the critters you encounter in D&D on a similar principle, in a homebrew system derived in small part from d&d I played decades ago, there were limits to the damage small pixies could recieve from trolls trying to play tree trunks baseball with them: it requires very little kinetic energy to accelerate a pixie to the speed of a tree trunk, because the momentum transfer is extremely small. This soaking effect disappears of course if the pixie can't be accelerated, because it got smashed gorily on a rock, for instance
>>1718 how about adjusting the fall damage dice using your size modifier? that way, a rat would be rolling 1d3 and a bulette 2d6 instead of the regular 1d6 in the calculations
>>1910 that's very doable, in fact, the physics of fall damage is fundamentally the same principle as the damage from natural weapons determined by size you could almost lift it directly from there and it would feel quite natural
(315.81 KB 712x2500 AngryMarines.jpg)

>>1437 I think we can all agree that is fucking awesome.
>>1486 That's a question of density, not size.
>>1419 (OP) would you consider a feat that gives you an animal companion (using a reduced list, probably things on par with a riding dog) at a druid level equal to half your CL to be broken, or not worth it?
>>3175 Doesn't the ranger animal companion progression work this way? I think may be viable, i would probably balance it as a standalone feat using the "Leadership" one scaling as reference.
>>3176 yes, it's pretty similar to a ranger's so there's a slight overlap technically it's even a bit stronger since it's tied to your CL, so it will scale with multiclassing without issues. the issue with Leadership is that it's arguably one of the strongest feats in the game, so using that as a base for balance might be a bit over the top
(1003.72 KB 1000x400 Screenshot_20250426-085506.png)

>>3177 Are you going to make it a feat that could be selected multiple times (each new pick is an extra animal companion)? It would make sense if you keep rangers and druids availabe. Speaking about leadership i was thinking picrel regarding multiple selections, you apply a -2 (each time to the new pick) to your druid level in order to determine the next animal companion abilities.
>>3215 oh, i see what you mean now! honestly, i didn't think about it, i'd say the investment of a feat is enough of a penalty as it is, but some guy showing up with 8 hounds of half his CL (or a lot more with chaos shuffle) might be an hilarious issue
>>3215 >>3235 thinking about it, having an handle animal rank requirement that gets higher each time you want to take the feat again might solve this issue
(72.69 KB 1193x265 falling.jpg)

>>1419 (OP) >How would you fix the falling damage rules?
>>3270 Cool, i can work with this one. Thanks anon
>>3270 Landing on water from 50ft is like hitting solid rock, it should just be considered "soft".
>>3296 maybe have a swim check for diving? a perfect dive should solve or at least heavily mitigate this issue
How would you guys compare this custom spell to Battletide? >https://rentry.org/niqx6cbw There's two (A) options under Battle Cadence because I haven't decided which of the two I'll keep. I'm leaning towards the slightly better but still pretty bad Spiritual Weapon effect, simply because it's cooler, and it stacks with hastes too so there's that. Basically, I want this version to be thematic while not being actually stronger than Battletide, hence the nerfed speed and free quicken. Copying the question from 4chan in the off chance some of you are here exclusively.
>>3175 Wild Cohort from the 18th of November 2003 "Wild Life" web article does almost this: >https://web.archive.org/web/20161101073942/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/re/20031118a
>>3325 interesting


Forms
Delete
Report
Quick Reply
Drag files here to upload or
click here to select them